Dissent

The Indiana Supreme Court has given casinos a double win today, saying the businesses can ban card-counting and also that
state statute doesn’t allow patrons to recover for losses they might incur because of problem gambling.

The Indiana Supreme Court held that employer-provided health-insurance benefits constitute an asset once they have vested
in a party to the marriage, and addressed for the first time the possible methods of valuing these benefits in marriage dissolution.
This conclusion led one justice to dissent because it disrupts existing dissolution property division law.

Three Indiana Supreme Court justices created a new requirement as an exercise of supervisory powers when it comes to informing
future defendants about the dangers of proceeding pro se, leaving two justices to dissent because the new requirement provides
no guidance as to what trial courts must do or say.

The Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed summary judgment in favor of an insurance company, noting a soccer team’s
accident while traveling to an activity outside of the trip’s purpose was not covered.

The majority of justices on the Indiana Supreme Court agreed that the trial court didn't abuse its discretion in denying
a married couple's pro se motion to continue after their attorney withdrew six weeks before trial. The dissenting justice
argued because of the complexities of the case, the trial court should have granted the couple's motion.

Parties shouldn't be allowed to raise arguments for the first time in response to a rehearing petition before an appellate
court, an Indiana Court of Appeals judge wrote in disagreeing with two of her colleagues.

The Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether inmates in a jail could be charged with escape if they never left the outer
walls of the facility. The majority affirmed the dismissal of the escape charges against the six inmates, ruling the act was
just a violation of prison rules.

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues' view that a police "knock and talk" investigation
didn't violate a man's rights under the Indiana Constitution, fearing the circumstances of the case could lead to
a general distrust of law enforcement.

One Indiana Court of Appeals judge believed his colleagues strayed from the evidence of recruitment and instead focused the
family's financial plight when they decided the high school athlete didn't transfer schools primarily for athletic
reasons.

Although all three Indiana Court of Appeals judges came to conclusion that the trial court should revisit its order to grant
full custody of a child to her abusive father, the judges differed as how the trial court should have approached the matter.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment today in favor of Ford Motor Co. in a products liability lawsuit, but
the judges disagreed as to whether the manufacturer breached its duty to warn of the dangers of children riding in the front
seat with airbags turned on.

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed that an attorney was ineffective because the majority found the attorney
told her client he "should" win the case whereas one judge pointed out in the record the attorney admitted to telling
the client he "would" win.

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues today in a ruling involving the ownership of certain joint
accounts because he believed an Indiana Supreme Court decision was binding in the case.

A decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals about child pornography convictions turned into an examination of whether
a standard adopted by the Circuit Court regarding allocution should remain the law of the Circuit.

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider under a recent ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed
the forfeiture of a woman's car following the arrest of her son for driving while suspended. One judge dissented because
she believes the search of the vehicle was unreasonable in light of the recent ruling.

Indiana Court of Appeals judges unanimously agreed today that a defendant's petition for expungement of his arrest shouldn't
have been denied by the trial court, but they disagreed as to what should happen on remand.

A majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices agreed a man who pleaded guilty couldn't appeal the denial of his pre-trial
motion to suppress. Yet one justice believed the plea agreement should have been honored according to its terms, which included
reserving the right to object to the denial of the motion to suppress.

Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed today whether a company should be entitled to damages when it lowered its bid for
work at a state-run hospital based on fraudulent information from another bidder.